Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS
Deceased Pedro Clemente, husband of petitioner Carolina, worked as a janitor under
the Department of Health for 10 years. He was assigned at the Ilocos Norte Skin
Clinic. From November 3-14, Pedro was hospitalized at the Central Luzon Sanitarium
due to nephritis. He was also found to be suffering from portal cirrhosis and leprosy.
On November 14, 1976 Pedro Clemente died of uremia due to nephritis. Petitioner
thereafter filed with the GSIS a claim for employees compensation under the Labor
Code. GSIS denied the claim of the petitioner because the ailments of her husband
were not occupational diseases taking into consideration the nature of his work
and/or (sic) or were not in the least causally related to his duties and conditions of
work.
Petitioner requested for reconsideration of the GSIS' denial of her claim, stating that
the ailments of her husband were contracted in the course of his employment and
were aggravated by the nature of his work. GSIS still denied her claim and
forwarded records of petitioners claim to the Employees Compensation
Commission (ECC) for review. ECC affirmed GSIS decision.
Petitioner now seeks review of the ECCs decision.
ISSUE
WON PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION
RULING
SC finds sufficient evidence on record to sustain the petitioners view.
The claim in question falls under the provision of Labor Code, specifically Article
167(L) thereof. Said provision together with Section 1(b) Rule 3 of the
Amended Rules on Employees Compensation provides that for the sickness
and the resulting disability/death to be compensable the sickness must be the result
of an occupational disease listed under Annex "A" of the Rules with the conditions
therein satisfied; otherwise, proof must be shown that the risk of contracting the
disease is increased by the working conditions.
However, although the ailments of Pedro were not listed as one of the occupational
diseases under Annex A of the Rules, the Court ruled in Sarmiento v. Employees
Compensation Commission:
Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in claims for
compensation (San Valentin v. Employees' Compensation Commission, 118 SCRA 160; Better
Building, Inc., v. Puncan, 135 SCRA 62). The degree of proof required under P.D. 626; is
merely substantial evidence, which means, "such relevant evidence as